MANJULABEN ARVINDBHAI RUPARELIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(5), SURAT
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition made by the Assessing Officer. There was a delay of 99 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to a belief that the case was adjourned.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A)?
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth , Accountant Member ITA No. 908/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16
Manjulaben Arvindbhai The ITO, Rupareliya, 10 Siddharth Ward-3(1)(5), Township, B/H Silver Vs Surat Point, Nana Varachha (Respondent) Surat-395006 PAN: AFFPR0190C (Appellant)
Assessee by: Shri PM Jagasheth, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 04-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)’] dated 16.03.2024 arising from the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax
I.T.A No. 908/Srt/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 2 Manjulaben Arvindbhai Rupareliya vs. ITO
Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16.
There is a delay of 99 days in filing of this appeal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that that the assessee had sought adjournment from the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee was under bonafide belief that the case has been adjourned, however the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte decision of the appeal and confirmed the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer treating the capital gains shown by the assessee as business income of the assessee. The ld. counsel has submitted that since the assessee was not aware of the passing of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore the delay has occurred in filing the present appeal.
Considering the above submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. We are of the view that interests of justice will be well served, if, the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) for decision afresh on this issue. The assessee will be given adequate opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A). The assessee will not request for unnecessary adjournments before the Ld. CIT(A) and will promptly produce
I.T.A No. 908/Srt/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 3 Manjulaben Arvindbhai Rupareliya vs. ITO
all necessary documents/evidences before the CIT(A) as and when called for.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28-03-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated: 28/03/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat
